This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

LSE or City for actuarial science?

not sure if this is true...but i've heard that city is better than lse for actuarial science. could anyone confirm if this is true or not? i've been looking for league tables for actuarial science, but as far as i know, there aren't any. am i being incredibly stupid to even consider city over lse??? :confused:

goto LSE

Heh from Croydon too, and considering your grades probably an Old Palace girl. Anyway im at LSE (1st year) doing Actuarial Science. I got offers both from LSE and City for said course.

LSE has the better name, and i would say is better for Actuarial Science. But there are other things which make LSE better than City.

1) LSE will guarantee you halls for 1st years no matter where you are from, unlike City who actually said dont bother applying if you live within the M25 (maybe not in those words but thats the gist of it).

2) Location: The halls and LSE itself is located in one of the best possible student locations in London, right next to leiscter Square, trafalger, oxford street etc, where all the places to go out are.

3) The International nature of LSE, i now feel is a positive after spending only a short term at LSE, you will meet alot of people from outside the UK which is a good thing.

But getting halls in first year is the major factor here, because you dont really want to be living at home if you can help it.

Hope that helps, and also considering you've been interviewed for MORSE at Warwick, you'll get an offer. Of AAB (withs As in Maths, and F.Maths).

Reply 3

shady lane

16

I don't know much about actuarial science, but I'd say LSE. If you find that you don't want to do actuary/accounting work at the end of 3 years, the LSE reputation and name will allow you more access to top employers in different fields. City doesn't have the same prestige or the same quality of employer contacts.

Reply 4

andy_1989

Yeah I basically agree with what everyone has said, City is well-known for its business department and the actuarial science degree they offer is of a good quality. But compared to LSE.. well you can't compare it. All the top employers (Goldman sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley etc) tend to visit LSE frequently. My dads mate son goes LSE and he said at the presentation they practically beg them to apply to their firms. I doubt you get that at city.

Reply 5

2late

13

andy_1989

My dads mate son goes LSE and he said at the presentation they practically beg them to apply to their firms. I doubt you get that at city.

That's sorta true. My LSE mail inbox is spammed every week by dozens of offers from various companies, such as the ones you mentioned.

LSE>ALL !!!!!!! :cool:

Reply 6

xuyv

JUJUBE
When did you get your offer for actuarial science from LSE?

Reply 7

Singh_87

15

andy_1989

Yeah I basically agree with what everyone has said, City is well-known for its business department and the actuarial science degree they offer is of a good quality. But compared to LSE.. well you can't compare it. All the top employers (Goldman sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley etc) tend to visit LSE frequently. My dads mate son goes LSE and he said at the presentation they practically beg them to apply to their firms. I doubt you get that at city.

This has little relevance if you wish to work as an Actuary.

For obvious reasons, LSE has some clear advantages over City. However, in terms of the course itself, the City course is much more suitable in terms of entering the industry. LSE's course is more focused around the theory, which is great, but obviously lacks some of the advantages you will gain doing the degree at City.

Last year's figures show that the amount of students which enter the profession are much greater for City than they are for LSE (City was the fourth highest, and LSE 7th if I can recall correctly). This may be due to the intake for each course, but it just underlines my point about City being much more suitable if you wish to enter the Actuarial industry.

Congrats on your offers by the way, wish you all the best.

Reply 8

shady lane

16

That could also mean that more LSE students either 1. went back to their home country or 2. found employment in different industries--such as banking, consulting, or other finance jobs.

Reply 9

Singh_87

15

shady lane

That could also mean that more LSE students either 1. went back to their home country or 2. found employment in different industries--such as banking, consulting, or other finance jobs.

Point 1 - fair play. But point 2, even though it may be true, doesn't change the fact there are more people entering the Actuarial profession from City than LSE. Obviously, there will be many case scenarios to conisder, but the statistics show that City produces more Actuarial students than LSE, which strengthens my arguement about City providing a better suited course if you wish to enter the industry.

Reply 10

shady lane

16

...assuming that at the age of 18, one is so certain that one wants to be an actuary that choosing City over LSE is a good decision.

Reply 11

jujube

OP

thanks people for the advice....i'll probably go to lse, as it's true that lse looks far better on a cv than city.... but i just wondered, where did the stats come from about city generating more actuarial students than lse?

Reply 12

2late

13

Singh_87

Point 1 - fair play. But point 2, even though it may be true, doesn't change the fact there are more people entering the Actuarial profession from City than LSE. Obviously, there will be many case scenarios to conisder, but the statistics show that City produces more Actuarial students than LSE, which strengthens my arguement about City providing a better suited course if you wish to enter the industry.

STATISTICAL EVIDENCE PLEASE

Reply 13

Singh_87

15

2late

STATISTICAL EVIDENCE PLEASE

Sorry about the late reply -

Anyways, of course. Here is the evidence

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/Display_Page.cgi?url=/maintained/about_the_profession/statistics.html

Also note that this for undergraduates only, so it is definitely better in my opinion to go to City, if being an Actuary is what you definitly want to do.

Reply 14

Singh_87

15

shady lane

...assuming that at the age of 18, one is so certain that one wants to be an actuary that choosing City over LSE is a good decision.

Glad you agree :smile:

Reply 15

sebbie

15

LSE is the best uni that does Acturial Science so go there....

Reply 16

Nero3000

sebbie?

>_>
<_<

durrant?

Reply 17

sp2007

jujube

am i being incredibly stupid to even consider city over lse??? :confused:

yes.
or at least I personally wouldn't chose city over lse.

Reply 18

Ancient Beast

2

jujube

am i being incredibly stupid to even consider city over lse??? :confused:

Well posting the question in the LSE forum wasn't exactly going to give you unbiased answers...

I think City does the course better, didn't it basically invent the actuarial science course?

Reply 19

danuzi

Singh_87

Sorry about the late reply -

Anyways, of course. Here is the evidence

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/Display_Page.cgi?url=/maintained/about_the_profession/statistics.html

Also note that this for undergraduates only, so it is definitely better in my opinion to go to City, if being an Actuary is what you definitly want to do.

i got an offer from city of 3As for actuarial science im still w8in for a reply from lse and i kno few people hu hav been to city n hu r wrkin at top firms n say city is da best for employment and has the best department in the country however reputation wise lse smaks city but doesnt matter coz firms will know city apllicants are beta bcoz dey hav the practical experience

IM ALSO WONDERIN WILL I GET A PLACE IN HALLS AT CITY BCOZ IM LIVIN IN BROMLEY AND IM HOPIN I DO . DO U KNO ENYONE HU LIVES IN LONDON N HAS GOT A PLACE DER.

LSE or City for actuarial science?

Related discussions

Articles for you